-->
We have had our little Tripacer for around six years. It has been a great plane, but as a lot of
our flying friends predicted, we have kind of outgrown it and are ready to move
on.
Originally,
when we considered selling, it was to downsize to a smaller plane (hard to
imagine if you have ever been in a Tripacer) just to stay in aviation and to
play around with locally. However, in crunching
numbers and talking with our mechanic, we decided we would like to stay with a
4-place (room for four passengers).
Ellen is getting bigger all the time, and if our next plane is going to
be truly used on a regular basis, needs room for the three of us and maybe a
fourth person on occasion.
So, a
4-place was the starter for a development of our mission. With the Tripacer, we have done all airport
to airport stuff, and we continue to see that as the major part of our
flying. If we had a tail wheel, we would
probably do some off-airport stuff, but more than likely we will use the next
plane to sight see from the air, visit friends in neighboring villages, and go
to Fairbanks for medical, shopping, and to visit our older daughter trips. We are also thinking about doing some back-country
airports like Serpentine Hot Springs by Nome.
For most of
that, a plane with a tricycle gear makes the most sense. They are generally easier to manage in a
crosswind and as a consequence, cheaper to insure. At one point, we were considering a Cessna 170
or 180.
 |
| Do you recognize this Cessna180 with Owen, one of its biggest fans, standing next to it? |
When we
bought our Tripacer, we lived in the dry interior of Alaska. Wet, windy days did not happen all that often
and rarely at the same time. It was a
great climate (other than trying to stay warm while flying) for a tube and
fabric airplane.
We now live
on the west coast of Alaska where wet, windy days are the norm. I hate the idea of my tube and fabric plane
getting beat around by the elements.
Though aluminum skinned airplanes are not impervious to corrosion, being
surrounded by a material that is slower to oxidize and more effectively keeps
out moisture is attractive to me as I think back to watching my plane go toe to
toe with the wind coming right off the ocean 200 yards from the tiedowns.
Our budget
is also a limiting factor. My dad has
yet to win the lottery, and if he would just stop stalling and do it, choosing
a plane would be much easier. As of
right now, we are around $50,000 or, more realistically, just south of that for
an airplane budget (this factors in the sale of the Tripacer).
We have
considered a Piper PA-12 Super Cruiser. Readers
who have any knowledge of old Pipers already see some problems with this plane
in regards to our mission. It is a
3-place (would work for most of our flying), tail dragger, tube and fabric
aircraft. Most people, when they see
them, automatically think they are super cubs… for good reason. The Super Cruiser was an intermediate step
between the J-3 Cub and the PA-18 Super Cub.
They cannot legally haul as much as the Super Cub, do not have flaps, but
have very similar performance other than that.
They can get in and out of a lot of places, but part of this is because
they go everywhere slowly.
 |
| Gunnar Johnson's PA-12 Super Cruiser |
I dream of winter flying with skis,
but don’t see my job changing in such a way as to allow me enough flying time
in the winter to legitimize such a purchase.
A good example is also hard to find in Alaska as they have all been so
highly modified and put through the wringer that good ones go for high prices.
We have also considered a Cessna
172. When most people think of general
aviation aircraft, they are picturing a Cessna 172. It would offer a little more elbow room than
our current plane, does have a skin made of aluminum, and there are a lot of
them out there. However, for the price,
they perform so much like a Tripacer that we might as well stay with our Tripacer.
Those words could start some
fights, but when we were shopping for our first plane, we did a lot of
comparison shopping between Tripacers and Skyhawks and came to the conclusion
that the Skyhawk, when equally equipped, was heavier, slower, and had less
useful load than a Tripacer. I don’t
really want to down talk Skyhawks. Some
of my first hours flying were in Skyhawks, but I found they just were not my
cup of tea, and I preferred a Tripacer.
The 182 is a plane that I really
would like to consider, but the price for a decent one places it out of our
price range this go around. It is on a
list of planes that Myra and consider forever planes should we get a chance to
upgrade one more time after the next plane.
In the midst of trying to determine
what plane would fit us, our mechanic recommended looking into Cherokee
140s. They are four-place, fixed gear,
low wing, all metal Pipers that come with 140-180 horse engines. Piper only made 140 horse models for a short
time before going up to the 150 O-320 Lycoming.
There is an STC that allows for an upgrade in horsepower by changing the
cylinders out for a slightly greater displacement to bring it up to 160 horse. Along with a power flow exhaust that is
available, they can be good performers and cruise between 10 and 20 knots
faster than our current Tripacer.
Our current plane has an O-320, and
they are great power plants in that parts are plentiful, being a four-cylinder
makes them good on gas, and they are performers. The 180 horse is an O-360 and though I am not
as familiar with them, hear good things.
We considered a Cessna 170 with an O-360 being our engine of choice in
that plane. The O-360 would not mean much
of an increased fuel burn if any.
The examples of Cherokee 180s that
we have come across have a high price tag though for what the plane really
is. I found a low time Cherokee 180
(little over 200 hours on an engine that is 2000 TBO), but it was also rebuilt
in 1997. 10 hours a year is not exactly
what I would call a healthy plan for any engine in order to keep oil flow going
and corrosion down. The seller was
asking $40,000 in essence making it truly a $60,000 plus airplane after rebuild…
might as well look at a Cessna 180 or older Cherokee 6 at that price.
Myra is currently planning on
working on her license and would be looking for a plane that is a forgiving
trainer. Many pilots have gotten their
wings in the little Cherokees with their Hersey bar wings. The constant chord wing makes it very stable
in a stall. Some would say too stable as
it is so gentle that it does not make for a good training tool for what “most”
planes do when they stop flying.
In this
way, the Cherokee 140 is very similar to the Tripacer. Rather than a crisp break at stall, both of
these planes have a tendency to mush and sink.
During my check ride, the tester was not satisfied with my power on
stall as I jerked the yoke back into my lap and made the plane drop its nose
with a clean break.
“Hey, take
it easy there,” he criticized. “Do it
again and instead of jerking it back, gently pull back on the yoke until you
reach the stall.”
“Okay,” I
said feeling like I actually knew something for once during the day.
I slowed
the plane, configured it for the maneuver and then slowly pulled back on the
yoke resulting in a depressing mush.
“Yeah… do
it your way,” he reconsidered.
Stalls are
a joy to learn without the pant-changing fear of dropping a wing like in a Cessna
150.
 |
| Myra standing in front of the 150 she used for some flight training... also happens to be the same 150 used in the reality show, Flying Wild Alaska |
This same
wing design allows for the soft, impressively perfect landings that the
Cherokee is supposed to allow even for newer pilots. This would be another confidence builder for
Myra while she learns and considering at least one of our daughters, if not
both, will be in the plane with us on cross countries, the smoother and safer the
landing, the better.
There is no
perfect plane out there that will fit everything we will want it to do, but as
of right now, it looks like we will be searching for a decent example from the
smaller Cherokee family of Pipers with hopefully an O-320 160 horse or O-360
180 horse.
Would really like your input. Is there a four-place plane that we should be considering and why?
 |
| Cherokee 180: Might our next plane be in the Cherokee family? |
No comments:
Post a Comment